Templates

Copy/paste prompts for NotebookLM, Gem instruction sets, and checklists you can use every time.

Gem Instruction Sets

Copy these instruction sets when creating new Gems in Gemini.

Peer Response Coach (Full Workflow)

You are my peer response writing coach for ENGL 170. When I share a peer's post, help me through these steps:

1. SUMMARIZE: State the peer's main argument in 2-3 sentences. Be charitable—represent them fairly.

2. STEELMAN: What's the strongest version of their argument? What would make it even more convincing?

3. MY ANGLE: Ask me what domain expertise or personal knowledge I bring. Help me connect it to their argument.

4. THESIS OPTIONS: Generate 2 possible thesis statements—one that builds on their argument, one that challenges it.

5. EVIDENCE GAPS: What claims in my response would need outside sources? List them.

6. OUTLINE: Create a 4-section outline: Hook → Peer Summary → My Argument → Conclusion

7. DRAFT: Write a ~800 word draft with [CITATION NEEDED] placeholders where I need to verify claims.

8. VERIFICATION: List every factual claim in the draft that needs a source.

Tone: Thoughtful, engaged, charitable to peers, confident in my own voice.

Argument Sharpener

You are my argument review assistant for ENGL 170 blog posts. When I share a draft, help me strengthen it:

1. THESIS CHECK: Is my thesis clear and defensible? If not, suggest refinements.

2. PEER FAIRNESS: Did I represent my peer's argument charitably? Point out any strawmanning.

3. EVIDENCE AUDIT: For each claim I make, is there evidence? Mark unsupported claims.

4. COUNTERARGUMENT: What's the strongest objection to my thesis? Have I addressed it?

5. STRUCTURE: Does the post flow logically? Suggest reordering if needed.

6. VOICE CHECK: Does this sound like a real person with opinions, or generic AI prose? Flag robotic sections.

Be direct. Don't soften criticism. I want honest feedback.

Source Verification Assistant

You are my fact-checking assistant for ENGL 170 blog posts. When I share a draft:

1. LIST all factual claims (statistics, quotes, historical events, research findings).

2. For each claim, note:
   - Is a source provided? (Yes/No)
   - If yes, can the source be verified?
   - If no, mark as [NEEDS SOURCE]

3. FLAG any claims that sound suspiciously specific but lack citation.

4. SUGGEST where I might find verification (specific search queries, types of sources).

5. WARN me about common AI hallucination patterns (fake studies, misattributed quotes, invented statistics).

Be thorough. Better to over-flag than miss something.

Voice Editor

You are my voice editor for ENGL 170 blog posts. My writing voice is:
- [Describe your voice: e.g., "conversational but precise, uses sports metaphors, occasionally sarcastic"]
- [Add specific traits: e.g., "I use 'I think' rather than 'one might argue'"]
- [Note what to avoid: e.g., "No corporate jargon, no overly academic phrasing"]

When I share a draft:
1. Identify sections that don't sound like me
2. Suggest revisions that match my voice
3. Keep the content; change only the phrasing
4. Preserve my argument structure

Don't make it generic. Make it sound like ME.

NotebookLM Question Prompts

Copy these prompts when working in NotebookLM.

Understanding a Peer's Argument

What are [peer name]'s three main claims? Quote the relevant passages.

What sources does this post cite? List each one with the specific claim it supports.

What assumptions does this argument depend on? What would need to be true for their conclusion to follow?

What's the strongest version of this argument? (Steelman it.)

Where is this argument weakest? What counterevidence would challenge it?

Verification Questions

Does [source name] actually say [specific claim]? Quote the relevant passage if available.

What does "exposed to AI" mean in the IMF report? Is it the same as "will be eliminated"?

What counterarguments exist to [thesis]? What do my sources say that challenges this view?

Where do my sources agree? Where do they disagree?

Building Your Response

Based on my sources, what's the strongest argument that [peer]'s thesis is correct?

Based on my sources, what's the strongest argument that [peer]'s thesis is flawed?

What evidence from my sources could I use to extend [peer]'s argument further?

Give me 2 possible thesis statements for my response — one that agrees with [peer] and extends the argument, one that challenges a specific assumption.

Drafting in NotebookLM

Based on my sources, help me draft an 800-word response that:
1. Summarizes [peer]'s argument fairly (2-3 sentences)
2. Presents my thesis: [your thesis here]
3. Uses evidence from my sources with citations
4. Addresses the strongest counterargument
5. Marks any claims that need additional verification with [VERIFY]

Checklists

Before You Publish Checklist

Post is 750-1500 words
Links to at least one peer post in the network
Has at least one outside source
Clear thesis appears in first two paragraphs
Peer's argument is represented fairly
All factual claims have sources (or are marked as opinion)
I've read the sources I cite (not just AI summaries)
Date is formatted correctly
Post title is clear and engaging

Source Verification Checklist

Every statistic has a named source
Quotes are accurate (check original)
Source actually says what I claim it says
Source is credible (academic, reputable news, official report)
I can find the source online (it's not hallucinated)
Publication date is recent enough to be relevant

AI Assistance Audit

The thesis is my position, not a summary of "both sides"
I chose which argument to make (AI gave options, I decided)
The voice sounds like me, not generic AI
I can defend every claim if asked
I know what my sources actually say (not just what AI summarized)
The structure serves my argument (not a template I blindly followed)

Practice URLs

These student posts are featured in the example pages. Copy the URLs to practice adding sources to NotebookLM.

Gabriel Bell — "The Silicon Mirage"

https://gabriel-bell.github.io/the-silicon-mirage.html

See the NotebookLM Example for a walkthrough using this post.

Zay Amaro — "Markets, Metrics, and the Myth of Certainty"

https://zayamaro.github.io/markets-and-metrics.html

See the Gems Example for a walkthrough using this post.

Eliana Nodari — "The Evolution of the Architect"

https://eliananodari.github.io/evolution-of-the-architect.html

See the Combined Example for a walkthrough using this post.

Tip: NotebookLM can import URLs directly as sources. Click "Add Source" → "Website" and paste the URL — no need to copy/paste the post text manually.

Naming Conventions

NotebookLM Notebooks

Peer Response – [Peer Name] – [Topic] – Week X

Examples:

Peer Response – Gabriel Bell – AI Scarcity – Week 3
Peer Response – Caleb Murphy – Prediction Markets – Week 4
Research – Scholarly Sources – Portfolio – Final

Notes in NotebookLM

[Peer]'s Main Claims
[Source Name] – Key Findings
My Thesis Development
Counterarguments from Sources
Verification Questions

Gems

Peer Response Coach — Full drafting workflow
Argument Sharpener — Draft review
Source Verifier — Fact-checking
Voice Editor — Style consistency

Quick Reference Card

Task	Tool	First Prompt
Understand peer's argument	NotebookLM	"What are [peer]'s three main claims? Quote the passages."
Find sources	NotebookLM	Discover Sources → [topic query]
Verify a statistic	NotebookLM	"Does [source] actually say [claim]? Quote it."
Generate outline	Gems	Peer Response Coach → share peer post → request outline
Draft post	Gems	"Generate a draft using [thesis] and the outline we created"
Review draft	Gems	Argument Sharpener → share draft
Check facts	Gems	Source Verifier → share draft